1
00:00:00,315 --> 00:00:04,492
Lawrence Lessig: Thank you very much. It's extremely cool to be here.

2
00:00:06,430 --> 00:00:08,539
It's just about as cool as when I spoke at Pixar.

3
00:00:08,739 --> 00:00:11,922
I think of these two as being highlights of my career.

4
00:00:12,122 --> 00:00:15,163
So, thank you very much for having me.

5
00:00:16,671 --> 00:00:21,721
I have two small ideas I want to use as an introduction to an argument,

6
00:00:22,906 --> 00:00:26,909
about the nature of access to scientific knowledge in the context of the internet,

7
00:00:27,663 --> 00:00:32,709
and use that argument as a step towards a plea about what we should do.

8
00:00:33,432 --> 00:00:35,651
So here is the first idea.

9
00:00:36,313 --> 00:00:39,054
I want to call it the "White-effect".

10
00:00:40,408 --> 00:00:46,207
And I name that after Justice Byron White, justice of the US Supreme Court,

11
00:00:46,346 --> 00:00:50,170
appointed by John F. Kennedy - there he is in 1962

12
00:00:51,170 --> 00:00:57,211
- famous before that as 'Whizzer' White on the Yale University football team.

13
00:00:57,565 --> 00:01:00,387
When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a famous liberal,

14
00:01:01,741 --> 00:01:07,123
renowned liberal, the only appointee that John Kennedy had to the Supreme Court.

15
00:01:07,123 --> 00:01:15,434
But 'Whizzer' White grew old, and he is probably most famous for an infamous opinion,

16
00:01:15,588 --> 00:01:18,968
which he penned on behalf of the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick,

17
00:01:19,230 --> 00:01:23,837
an opinion where the Supreme Court upheld the Criminalization of Sodomy laws,

18
00:01:24,144 --> 00:01:27,973
with the passage: 'Against this background, to claim that a right to engage

19
00:01:28,034 --> 00:01:33,701
in such conduct' - homosexual sodomy - 'is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"

20
00:01:33,763 --> 00:01:38,749
or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.'

21
00:01:40,072 --> 00:01:42,558
Now, this is what I want to think of as the "White Effect".

22
00:01:43,374 --> 00:01:51,169
To be a liberal or a progressive is always relative to a moment, and that moment changes,

23
00:01:51,277 --> 00:01:56,487
and too many are liberal or progressive no more.

24
00:01:58,148 --> 00:02:00,327
So, that's the "White effect". Here is the second idea.

25
00:02:00,466 --> 00:02:05,034
The Harvard Gazette is a kind of propaganda publication of Harvard University,

26
00:02:05,188 --> 00:02:07,573
it talks about all the happy things at Harvard.

27
00:02:07,696 --> 00:02:12,580
So here's an article that it wrote, about an extraordinary macro-economist,

28
00:02:12,611 --> 00:02:17,647
Gita Gopinath, who has just come to Harvard, received tenure last year

29
00:02:17,709 --> 00:02:21,478
and is one of the most influential macroeconomists in the United States right now.

30
00:02:21,755 --> 00:02:25,406
This article talks about her work and her research, and at the very end,

31
00:02:25,529 --> 00:02:27,337
there is this puzzling passage, where it says:

32
00:02:27,998 --> 00:02:33,429
'Still, the shelves in her new office are nearly bare, since, said Gopinath,

33
00:02:33,568 --> 00:02:37,718
"Everything I need is on the Internet now." '

34
00:02:40,441 --> 00:02:43,062
Right, that's the second idea. Here is the argument.

35
00:02:44,062 --> 00:02:51,252
So, copyright is a regulation by the State intended to change

36
00:02:51,344 --> 00:02:57,560
a regulation by the market. It's an exclusive right, a monopoly right,

37
00:02:57,699 --> 00:03:00,868
a property right granted by the State, which is necessary

38
00:03:00,991 --> 00:03:03,880
to solve an inevitable market failure.

39
00:03:05,311 --> 00:03:09,752
Now, by saying that it's necessary to solve an inevitable market failure,

40
00:03:10,091 --> 00:03:14,108
I'm marking myself as a pro-copyright scholar,

41
00:03:14,954 --> 00:03:18,884
in the sense that I believe copyright is necessary. Even in a digital age,

42
00:03:18,884 --> 00:03:23,854
especially in a digital age, copyright is necessary to achieve

43
00:03:24,623 --> 00:03:28,205
certain incentives that otherwise would be lost.

44
00:03:28,974 --> 00:03:33,648
But in the internet age, what we've seen as a fight about copyright,

45
00:03:33,864 --> 00:03:39,084
about the scope of copyright, waged most consistently in the context

46
00:03:39,146 --> 00:03:44,274
of the battle over artists' rights, in particular, in the context of music,

47
00:03:44,382 --> 00:03:50,805
where massive 'sharing' - sharing which is technically illegal - has lead to a fight

48
00:03:50,959 --> 00:03:56,322
fought by artists and especially by artists' representatives.

49
00:03:56,737 --> 00:04:02,212
And we from the Free Culture movement, have challenged the people

50
00:04:02,335 --> 00:04:04,527
who have been waging that fight.

51
00:04:04,635 --> 00:04:08,545
And they defend copyright in the context of that fight.

52
00:04:09,484 --> 00:04:15,908
But if we get above the din of this battle, the important thing to keep in mind

53
00:04:16,093 --> 00:04:21,614
is that both sides in this fight acknowledge that copyright is essential

54
00:04:21,691 --> 00:04:24,401
for certain creative work,

55
00:04:24,786 --> 00:04:30,578
and we need to respect copyright for that creative work.

56
00:04:30,578 --> 00:04:35,712
We, from the Free Culture movement, need to respect copyright for that work.

57
00:04:35,804 --> 00:04:40,935
We need to recognize that there is a place for a sensible copyright policy

58
00:04:41,427 --> 00:04:44,074
to protect and encourage that work.

59
00:04:45,659 --> 00:04:48,111
But, however - and here is the important distinction -

60
00:04:50,127 --> 00:04:57,736
Not only artists rely upon copyright, copyright is also relied upon by publishers,

61
00:04:57,859 --> 00:05:00,252
and publishers are a different animal.

62
00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:07,664
We don't have to be as negative as John Milton was when he wrote publishers are

63
00:05:07,664 --> 00:05:10,752
"Old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of books

64
00:05:10,875 --> 00:05:15,349
- men who do no labor in an honest profession, to [them], learning is indebted."

65
00:05:15,734 --> 00:05:20,279
We don't have to go quite that far to recognize why publishers are different,

66
00:05:20,464 --> 00:05:23,695
that the economic problem for publishers is different

67
00:05:24,126 --> 00:05:28,300
from the economic problems presented by creating.

68
00:05:29,300 --> 00:05:34,094
So who is copyright for? The publishers or the artists?

69
00:05:35,340 --> 00:05:38,600
Well, since the beginning of copyright in the Anglo-American tradition,

70
00:05:38,831 --> 00:05:43,554
the Statute of Anne of 1710, there has been this argument about whether copyright

71
00:05:43,554 --> 00:05:45,516
was intended for the publishers or the artists.

72
00:05:46,501 --> 00:05:52,727
When the Statute of Anne was originally introduced, it gave a perpetual term of copyright,

73
00:05:52,866 --> 00:05:56,048
which the publishers understood to be a protection for them.

74
00:05:56,217 --> 00:05:59,188
It was then amended to give just a limited term for copyright.

75
00:05:59,280 --> 00:06:03,789
Publishers were puzzled about that, because it wouldn't make sense to give a limited term

76
00:06:03,789 --> 00:06:05,474
if it was the publisher that was to be protected.

77
00:06:06,089 --> 00:06:13,149
In 1769, a court case in the context of Millar v. Taylor seemed to suggest that

78
00:06:13,180 --> 00:06:17,157
despite the limitations of the Statute of Anne, copyright was for ever.

79
00:06:17,803 --> 00:06:24,576
But in 1774, in a very famous case about this book, The Seasons, by James Thomson,

80
00:06:24,884 --> 00:06:30,421
the House of Lords held that copyright protected by the Status of Anne was limited,

81
00:06:31,282 --> 00:06:35,279
holding for the first time that works passed into a public domain.

82
00:06:35,479 --> 00:06:39,994
And for the first time in English history, works including Shakespeare

83
00:06:40,087 --> 00:06:44,232
passed into the public domain. And in this moment, we can say Free Culture was born.

84
00:06:45,386 --> 00:06:49,558
And it also clarified that copyright was not intended for the publisher.

85
00:06:49,558 --> 00:06:53,090
Even if it benefited the publishers, it was a creative right

86
00:06:53,090 --> 00:07:00,020
and author's right. Even if benefitting publishers, copyright was for authors.

87
00:07:01,850 --> 00:07:06,908
So, I remark these obvious borders about the scope of copyright,

88
00:07:07,046 --> 00:07:13,738
because we tend to forget them. We've been fighting a battle in the context of copyright

89
00:07:13,738 --> 00:07:19,118
where copyright is essential, and we are spending too little attention

90
00:07:19,734 --> 00:07:23,910
about a battle in a context where copyright is not essential.

91
00:07:24,864 --> 00:07:30,839
And I mean by that, in the context of science, in the context that Gopinath was speaking of

92
00:07:30,839 --> 00:07:35,226
when she talked about everything being available on the internet.

93
00:07:35,380 --> 00:07:39,531
And the consequence of failing to pay attention to this second context

94
00:07:39,531 --> 00:07:43,619
within which this battle is being waged is that there is a trouble here

95
00:07:43,619 --> 00:07:45,419
that too few see.

96
00:07:45,939 --> 00:07:48,255
So let's think about this claim that everything is on the internet now.

97
00:07:48,855 --> 00:07:51,139
What does that mean?

98
00:07:51,631 --> 00:07:55,562
Here is a particular example to evaluate what that means.

99
00:07:56,762 --> 00:08:00,469
Much of my work, these days, is focusing on corruption

100
00:08:00,484 --> 00:08:03,229
in the context of this institution, Congress.

101
00:08:03,722 --> 00:08:06,821
So let's say that we wanted to study, you wanted to study with me,

102
00:08:07,006 --> 00:08:13,298
corruption in this context. Go to Google Scholar and enter a search for campaign finance.

103
00:08:13,682 --> 00:08:17,065
Here are the top articles that would be listed from that search.

104
00:08:17,911 --> 00:08:20,338
So let's say you wanted to browse through these articles

105
00:08:20,338 --> 00:08:26,241
and get a sense of campaign finance and how it might be related to corruption in Congress.

106
00:08:26,625 --> 00:08:29,739
So here are the top 10 articles. This first one, a very famous one

107
00:08:29,739 --> 00:08:32,735
by my former colleague Pam Karlan and Sam Issacharof.

108
00:08:33,627 --> 00:08:38,376
You would find, to get access to this article, you'd have to pay $29.95.

109
00:08:38,684 --> 00:08:43,053
The second article, housed at JSTOR, you'd have to get through to get permission

110
00:08:43,053 --> 00:08:46,533
from the Columbia Law Review - not quite clear how you would do that.

111
00:08:46,779 --> 00:08:52,187
Third article, again, $29.95. The fourth article, protected by Questia,

112
00:08:52,357 --> 00:08:58,514
we learn that you can get a 1-day free trial to all of these Oxford University Press articles,

113
00:08:58,622 --> 00:09:01,507
you'd only have to pay when that day is over 99 dollars

114
00:09:01,507 --> 00:09:03,007
to continue for a year.

115
00:09:03,130 --> 00:09:05,641
Here is the 4th article again, protected by JSTOR.

116
00:09:05,641 --> 00:09:09,638
The 5th article, it's an economics article, so the price is right on the surface:

117
00:09:09,715 --> 00:09:12,058
10 dollars to purchase access to this article.

118
00:09:12,151 --> 00:09:15,167
Here's the 7th article, Columbia Law Review.

119
00:09:15,167 --> 00:09:19,966
8th article, Columbia Law Review, 9th article, protected again by JSTOR,

120
00:09:20,073 --> 00:09:28,440
10th article, $29.95. So, how accessible is this information to the general public?

121
00:09:29,055 --> 00:09:32,763
Well, one of these you can get access to for free, at least one time only,

122
00:09:33,071 --> 00:09:39,554
One of them you can pay $10 for. 3 of them, $29.95, and 5 of them, terms unknown,

123
00:09:39,754 --> 00:09:41,316
protected by JSTOR.

124
00:09:41,977 --> 00:09:45,743
So, when Gopinath says "Everything I need is on the internet",

125
00:09:45,789 --> 00:09:51,135
what does she mean? What she means is if - and this is a big if -

126
00:09:53,812 --> 00:09:58,227
you're a tenured professor at an elite university or we could say a professor,

127
00:09:58,365 --> 00:10:00,730
or a student or professor in an elite university, or maybe

128
00:10:00,730 --> 00:10:06,125
a student or professor at a US university, if you are a member of the knowledge elite,

129
00:10:06,417 --> 00:10:09,939
then you have effectively free access to all of this information.

130
00:10:10,462 --> 00:10:14,074
But if you are from the rest of the world? Not so much.

131
00:10:15,274 --> 00:10:17,495
Now, the thing to recognize is we built this world,

132
00:10:17,634 --> 00:10:24,109
we built this architecture for access, these flows from the deployment of copyright,

133
00:10:24,340 --> 00:10:30,513
but here, copyright to benefit publishers. Not to enable authors.

134
00:10:30,836 --> 00:10:34,585
Not one of these authors gets money from copyright.

135
00:10:34,708 --> 00:10:38,685
Not one of them wants the distribution of their articles limited.

136
00:10:38,901 --> 00:10:44,094
Not one of them has a business model that turns upon restricting access to their work.

137
00:10:44,094 --> 00:10:46,744
Not one of them should support this system.

138
00:10:46,913 --> 00:10:52,666
As a knowledge policy for the creators of this knowledge, this is crazy.

139
00:10:53,589 --> 00:10:55,458
And the craziness doesn't stop here.

140
00:10:56,904 --> 00:11:02,006
So, my third child, this extraordinarily beautiful girl, Samantha Tess,

141
00:11:04,082 --> 00:11:08,037
when she was born, the doctors were worried she had a condition

142
00:11:08,037 --> 00:11:12,206
that would suggest jaundice. I had jaundice as a baby, so I didn't think it was serious,

143
00:11:12,298 --> 00:11:18,093
and I was told very forcefully by her doctor, this is extroardinarily serious.

144
00:11:18,678 --> 00:11:23,373
If this condition manifest in the dangerous condition, it would produce brain damage,

145
00:11:23,373 --> 00:11:24,489
possibly death.

146
00:11:24,704 --> 00:11:28,871
So, of course, we were terrified. I went home and I did what every academic did - does:

147
00:11:29,102 --> 00:11:33,796
I pulled everything I could from the web to study about what jaundice was

148
00:11:33,873 --> 00:11:39,010
and what the conditions were. Now, because I am a Harvard professor,

149
00:11:39,010 --> 00:11:43,003
of course, I didn't have to pay to get access to this information, but I just kept the tally.

150
00:11:43,003 --> 00:11:47,543
To get access to the 20 articles that I wanted access to was $435,

151
00:11:47,589 --> 00:11:50,816
for the ordinary human, not a Harvard professor. OK.

152
00:11:51,447 --> 00:11:56,542
So I gathered these articles and set them aside, believing this problem

153
00:11:56,542 --> 00:11:59,171
would not manifest itself in a serious way.

154
00:11:59,832 --> 00:12:05,633
But on her third day, she fell into a stupor, and we called the doctor,

155
00:12:05,633 --> 00:12:08,835
and the doctor was panciked and he said we had to get to the hospital immediately.

156
00:12:09,712 --> 00:12:14,292
So, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we trundled the baby up and raced to the hospital.

157
00:12:14,769 --> 00:12:17,889
We were sitting in the waiting room, and I brought the articles with me,

158
00:12:17,951 --> 00:12:22,168
because I wanted something to do, to distract me from the terror

159
00:12:22,168 --> 00:12:23,960
that my child had this condition.

160
00:12:24,237 --> 00:12:27,685
And I picked up the first of these articles, which is actually free,

161
00:12:27,839 --> 00:12:31,061
published on the web for free, at the American Family Physician,

162
00:12:31,061 --> 00:12:33,022
and I started reading about this condition.

163
00:12:33,592 --> 00:12:37,126
And I got to this table, a table that was going to describe

164
00:12:37,203 --> 00:12:43,902
when you should worry about whether the child would have too severe of this exposure.

165
00:12:44,456 --> 00:12:46,263
I turned the page, and this is what I found:

166
00:12:47,340 --> 00:12:51,245
"The rightsholder did not grant rights to reproduce this item in electronic media.

167
00:12:51,337 --> 00:12:54,361
For the missing item, see the original print version of this publication."

168
00:12:55,561 --> 00:12:59,859
And I had this moment of liberation from fear about my child,

169
00:12:59,859 --> 00:13:03,611
because I turned to fear about our culture. I thought, this is outrageous!

170
00:13:03,765 --> 00:13:09,437
The idea that we are regulating access down to the chart in an article

171
00:13:09,452 --> 00:13:12,984
that was posted for free to help, not doctors, but parents

172
00:13:13,077 --> 00:13:15,236
understand what this condition was.

173
00:13:15,420 --> 00:13:18,760
We are regulating access to parts of articles.

174
00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:24,393
Now here and throughout our architecture for access,

175
00:13:24,393 --> 00:13:27,599
we are building an infrastructure for this regulation.

176
00:13:27,876 --> 00:13:31,520
Think about the Google Books project, which is perfecting control down to the sentence,

177
00:13:31,736 --> 00:13:35,424
the ability to regulate access down to the sentence.

178
00:13:36,363 --> 00:13:40,930
By the way, I alway forget to tell this: the kid is fine, she didn't have jaundice,

179
00:13:41,100 --> 00:13:43,913
it is a complete non issue.

180
00:13:44,298 --> 00:13:48,394
But the point is, we are architecting access here, for what purpose?

181
00:13:48,394 --> 00:13:53,560
To maximize revenue. And why? Revenue to the artists?

182
00:13:53,637 --> 00:13:57,303
Revenues necessary to produce the incentive to create?

183
00:13:57,303 --> 00:14:01,150
Is this a limitation that serves any of the real objectives of copyright?

184
00:14:02,042 --> 00:14:03,312
The answer is no.

185
00:14:03,789 --> 00:14:08,275
It is simply the natural result of for-profit production

186
00:14:08,321 --> 00:14:12,334
for any good that we, quote, must have.

187
00:14:13,488 --> 00:14:19,589
As Bergstrom and McAfee describe in a really fantastic little bit of work,

188
00:14:19,712 --> 00:14:24,193
if you compare the cost per page of for-profit publishers

189
00:14:24,316 --> 00:14:28,975
and the cost per page of not-for-profit publishers in these different fields of science,

190
00:14:29,113 --> 00:14:33,505
it's a 4 and a half times factor difference cost per page.

191
00:14:34,351 --> 00:14:39,735
That is a function of different, of these having different objectives.

192
00:14:39,735 --> 00:14:43,063
One objective is to spread knowledge: that's the not-for-profit publishers,

193
00:14:43,217 --> 00:14:47,794
and one objective, to maximize profit: that's the for-profit publishers.

194
00:14:49,348 --> 00:14:54,780
Now, this architecture for access is beginning to build resistance.

195
00:14:55,949 --> 00:14:57,819
So, think about the story of JSTOR.

196
00:14:59,034 --> 00:15:02,391
JSTOR was launched in 1995, with an extraordinary amount of funding

197
00:15:02,391 --> 00:15:08,378
from the Mellon Foundation. That funding produced a huge archive

198
00:15:08,378 --> 00:15:13,519
of journal articles. So that there are now more than 1200 journals, 20 collections,

199
00:15:13,519 --> 00:15:19,993
53 disciplines, 303'000 issues, about 38 million pages in JSTOR archive.

200
00:15:21,516 --> 00:15:24,053
When this archive was launched, everybody thought it was brilliant.

201
00:15:24,945 --> 00:15:27,520
Everybody thought the access here was extraordinary.

202
00:15:28,013 --> 00:15:32,628
But today? There is increasingly criticism growing out there

203
00:15:32,628 --> 00:15:35,685
about how JSTOR makes its information accessible.

204
00:15:35,870 --> 00:15:39,207
We could think of it as a kind of "White effect".

205
00:15:39,468 --> 00:15:44,496
It was liberal when it was launched, but what has it become as it has grown old?

206
00:15:44,927 --> 00:15:47,767
So, for example, here is an article published in the

207
00:15:47,767 --> 00:15:51,706
California Historical Society Quarterly. It's 6 pages long.

208
00:15:51,860 --> 00:15:56,914
To get it, you have to pay $20 to JSTOR, this non-profit organization,

209
00:15:57,068 --> 00:16:01,419
leading Carl Malamud, who of course is famous for his Public Resources site,

210
00:16:01,557 --> 00:16:04,406
to tweet in the following way: "JSTOR is morally offensive.

211
00:16:04,514 --> 00:16:08,843
$20 for a 6-page article, unless you happen to work at a fancy school."

212
00:16:09,459 --> 00:16:12,955
Now, you might say, "This is a really important academic archive",

213
00:16:13,078 --> 00:16:16,925
but the question is whether this really important academic archive

214
00:16:16,925 --> 00:16:20,339
is going to become a kind of RIAA for the academy.

215
00:16:20,447 --> 00:16:24,193
Begging the question that the "White effect" always begs,

216
00:16:24,193 --> 00:16:28,430
whether we could do this better under a different set of assumptions.

217
00:16:28,599 --> 00:16:34,405
Now, of course the Open Access movement is the movement that was launched

218
00:16:34,405 --> 00:16:37,274
to try and do this better under different circumstances.

219
00:16:37,274 --> 00:16:42,258
Now, it has a long history, but its real push was inspired by

220
00:16:42,305 --> 00:16:46,466
a dramatic increase in the cost of journals.

221
00:16:46,604 --> 00:16:52,338
So, if this is a study between 1986 and 2004 by the American Research Libraries,

222
00:16:52,446 --> 00:16:57,964
this is the increase in inflation, this is the increase in the cost of serials,

223
00:16:57,964 --> 00:17:02,467
it's obvious that the market power of these publishers is being exploited,

224
00:17:02,574 --> 00:17:08,526
because the purchasers of these serials have no choice but to buy them.

225
00:17:08,680 --> 00:17:15,435
It's in part motivated by this cost concern, it's also motivated by a sense of unfairness.

226
00:17:15,604 --> 00:17:17,900
We do all the work, they get all the money, here.

227
00:17:18,730 --> 00:17:22,904
So the response to these two kinds of concerns has been two:

228
00:17:23,058 --> 00:17:28,230
#1 an open access self-archiving movement, where the push has been

229
00:17:28,230 --> 00:17:31,113
"Let's get as many things out there archived on the Web as we can,

230
00:17:31,205 --> 00:17:34,442
pre-prints and whatever we can get up, and make sure

231
00:17:34,442 --> 00:17:38,550
the Web can make them accessible" - and an Open Access publishing movement.

232
00:17:39,058 --> 00:17:41,412
Now, what's the difference between these two movements?

233
00:17:41,412 --> 00:17:48,212
The difference is licensing. Some "open" is "free", in the sense that Richard Stallman

234
00:17:48,212 --> 00:17:52,721
made famous by his quote: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price.

235
00:17:52,890 --> 00:17:56,897
To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech,

236
00:17:56,897 --> 00:17:58,997
not as in free beer."

237
00:18:00,151 --> 00:18:05,605
So, some aspect of the Open Access publishing is free as in free speech,

238
00:18:05,929 --> 00:18:11,258
some "open" is not. Some is just free as in: "You can download it freely,

239
00:18:11,396 --> 00:18:15,785
but the rights that you get from the download are just as broad

240
00:18:15,785 --> 00:18:18,932
as narrowly granted by some implicit copyright rule.

241
00:18:19,193 --> 00:18:26,616
Now, "free", as in licensed freely, has been the objective that the Science Commons project,

242
00:18:26,616 --> 00:18:29,006
which is a project that Creative Commons has been pushing,

243
00:18:29,052 --> 00:18:34,696
and pushing as part of a broader strategy for producing

244
00:18:34,696 --> 00:18:38,225
the information architecture that science needs, as they announce

245
00:18:38,225 --> 00:18:41,043
in their "Principles for open science". There are four principles here.

246
00:18:41,043 --> 00:18:46,292
The first is, there should be open access to literature, by which Science Commons says:

247
00:18:46,369 --> 00:18:49,282
you should be on the internet, literature "should be on the internet

248
00:18:49,375 --> 00:18:52,665
in digital form, with permission granted in advance

249
00:18:52,757 --> 00:18:56,987
to users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link

250
00:18:57,080 --> 00:19:02,629
to the full texts of articles, crawl them indexing, pass them as data to software,

251
00:19:02,706 --> 00:19:04,844
or use them for any other lawful purpose,

252
00:19:04,890 --> 00:19:09,623
without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable

253
00:19:09,623 --> 00:19:11,874
from gaining access to the internet itself."

254
00:19:12,305 --> 00:19:14,526
That's what "free", here, means.

255
00:19:15,003 --> 00:19:18,337
Second, access to research tools: there should be "materials necessary

256
00:19:18,337 --> 00:19:22,202
to replicate funded research - cell lines, model animals, DNA tools,

257
00:19:22,386 --> 00:19:26,152
reagents, and more - should be described in digital formats,

258
00:19:26,199 --> 00:19:29,330
made available under standard terms of use or contracts,

259
00:19:29,330 --> 00:19:34,717
with infrastructure or resources to fulfill requests to qualified scientists,

260
00:19:34,717 --> 00:19:37,506
and with full credit provided to the scientist who created the tools."

261
00:19:37,676 --> 00:19:42,513
#3 Data should be in the public domain. "Research data, data sets, databases,

262
00:19:42,513 --> 00:19:44,367
and protocols should be in the public domain."

263
00:19:44,367 --> 00:19:46,436
meaning no copyright restrictions at all.

264
00:19:46,513 --> 00:19:49,078
And 4, Open cyber-infrastructure:

265
00:19:49,155 --> 00:19:52,607
"Data without structure and annotation is an opportunity lost.

266
00:19:52,699 --> 00:19:56,970
Research data should flow in an open, public and extensible infrastructure

267
00:19:57,016 --> 00:20:01,957
that supports its recombination and reconfiguration into computer models,

268
00:20:02,050 --> 00:20:03,965
its searchability by search engines,

269
00:20:03,996 --> 00:20:08,166
and its use by both scientists and the taxpaying public.

270
00:20:08,258 --> 00:20:11,217
This infrastructure is an essential public good."

271
00:20:12,125 --> 00:20:15,945
Now, my view is, this the right way - you might think this is the left way -

272
00:20:15,945 --> 00:20:22,031
but it's the correct way to instantiate this Open Access movement.

273
00:20:22,231 --> 00:20:25,982
The values and the efficiency and the justice in this architecture

274
00:20:26,089 --> 00:20:29,880
are the right values, efficiency and justice for an Open Access movement.

275
00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:34,325
So let's call it, following Stallman, the Free Access Movement.

276
00:20:34,479 --> 00:20:36,781
And the critical question of the Free Access movement

277
00:20:36,874 --> 00:20:41,455
is the license that governs access to the information being provided.

278
00:20:41,455 --> 00:20:43,752
Does the license grant freedoms?

279
00:20:44,260 --> 00:20:47,556
And that, of course, was the motivation between the Public Library of Science -

280
00:20:47,664 --> 00:20:50,692
every one of their articles is published under a Creative Commons

281
00:20:50,754 --> 00:20:53,203
Attribution license, the freest license we have.

282
00:20:54,126 --> 00:20:59,767
And that is increasingly the practice, surprisingly, of the largest publishers,

283
00:20:59,767 --> 00:21:02,910
as described by this wonderful project housed here at CERN,

284
00:21:03,064 --> 00:21:05,577
which is studying Open Access publishing.

285
00:21:06,654 --> 00:21:12,068
This is the first of three stages to this project. When studying the large publishers,

286
00:21:12,191 --> 00:21:16,290
this study concludes that "Half of the large publishers use some version

287
00:21:16,290 --> 00:21:21,364
of a Creative Commons license. These seven publish 72% of the titles

288
00:21:21,364 --> 00:21:23,879
and 71% of the articles investigated.

289
00:21:23,956 --> 00:21:31,461
And of these, 82% use the freest license, cc-by, and 18% use cc-by-nc", non commercial.

290
00:21:31,676 --> 00:21:38,550
And that of course is an excellent report on the progress of this free access movement

291
00:21:38,550 --> 00:21:40,497
in the context of the largest publishers.

292
00:21:40,497 --> 00:21:45,635
But what's not excellent in this story is the other publishers here.

293
00:21:46,219 --> 00:21:52,081
For these other publishers, only 73% you can determine copyright status

294
00:21:52,081 --> 00:21:58,375
69% transfer the copyright to the publisher. Only 21 % of the articles

295
00:21:58,421 --> 00:22:01,300
have any Creative Commons license attached at all.

296
00:22:02,300 --> 00:22:08,111
Now, this is because these other publishers are using copyright as a means,

297
00:22:09,157 --> 00:22:15,020
a means to a non-knowledge ends, to a non-copyright ends.

298
00:22:15,250 --> 00:22:18,328
So, for example, they are using it to support the societies

299
00:22:18,328 --> 00:22:20,762
that might happen to be associated with publishing

300
00:22:20,762 --> 00:22:23,892
that particular journal, that society that might study

301
00:22:23,985 --> 00:22:25,208
one particular of science.

302
00:22:25,392 --> 00:22:28,336
That society, of course, is valuable, but what they are doing

303
00:22:28,336 --> 00:22:31,357
is using copyright to support that society.

304
00:22:31,357 --> 00:22:36,775
And the consequence of that strategy is to block access to all but the few.

305
00:22:37,221 --> 00:22:40,078
We don't achieve the objectives of the Enlightenment,

306
00:22:40,155 --> 00:22:44,389
we achieve the reality of an elite-nment, the elite-nment

307
00:22:44,389 --> 00:22:47,624
which describes the way in which we spread knowledge

308
00:22:47,624 --> 00:22:50,659
despite the ideals of the Enlightenment.

309
00:22:50,706 --> 00:22:55,791
And the point I'm emphasizing here is that it's for no good copyright reason.

310
00:22:56,714 --> 00:23:01,533
Now, the slowness inside of science to embrace this more broadly,

311
00:23:01,640 --> 00:23:05,121
especially among the smaller publishers, may surprise some,

312
00:23:05,198 --> 00:23:08,976
or maybe it doesn't surprise. The whole design of science

313
00:23:09,068 --> 00:23:13,496
is to be a fad-resistor, the idea is to have an infrastructure

314
00:23:13,573 --> 00:23:17,490
that avoids fads, and tradition then becomes the metric of what's right

315
00:23:17,521 --> 00:23:18,805
or of what's good in science.

316
00:23:18,882 --> 00:23:25,181
But I think it's time to recognize that Free Access, as in free, as in speech access

317
00:23:25,181 --> 00:23:26,866
is no fad.

318
00:23:26,866 --> 00:23:32,977
And it's time to push this non fad more broadly in the context of science.

319
00:23:33,561 --> 00:23:38,623
Now, just because I'm talking about how bad some area of science is,

320
00:23:38,762 --> 00:23:43,011
I don't mean to suggest that the arts is good, right?

321
00:23:43,011 --> 00:23:45,984
We have practices in the context of the arts that are just as bad, here.

322
00:23:46,138 --> 00:23:51,408
For example, think about a recent episode around YouTube.

323
00:23:51,531 --> 00:23:54,586
You know, we should not minimize the significance of YouTube

324
00:23:54,647 --> 00:23:56,926
in the infrastructure of culture right now.

325
00:23:57,003 --> 00:23:59,611
YouTube now has 43 different languages.

326
00:23:59,672 --> 00:24:03,466
There is more uploaded in one month on Youtube

327
00:24:03,512 --> 00:24:08,311
than was broadcast by the major networks in the United States

328
00:24:08,327 --> 00:24:10,557
over the last 60 years.

329
00:24:11,342 --> 00:24:16,012
Every single day, 6 new years of video gets uploaded to YouTube.

330
00:24:16,135 --> 00:24:19,289
There are 2 billion views of YouTube every single year.

331
00:24:19,381 --> 00:24:24,376
every single day, sorry. That's 40% increase over just the last year.

332
00:24:24,484 --> 00:24:28,232
And I've been famously a fan of this extraordinary site

333
00:24:28,340 --> 00:24:31,679
because I celebrate the kind of read-write creativity

334
00:24:31,756 --> 00:24:34,322
that I think YouTube has encouraged.

335
00:24:34,322 --> 00:24:38,675
And I got this sense of what we should think of as read-write creativity

336
00:24:38,675 --> 00:24:40,927
when I was reading testimony at this place

337
00:24:40,927 --> 00:24:44,345
by this man, John Philip Souza, in 1906.

338
00:24:44,391 --> 00:24:48,914
when he was - I didn't read it in 1906 but the testimony was given in 1906 -

339
00:24:49,145 --> 00:24:52,419
when Souza was testifying about this technology,

340
00:24:52,419 --> 00:24:56,090
what he called "talking machines".

341
00:24:56,660 --> 00:25:00,461
Now, Souza was not a fan of the talking machines.

342
00:25:00,861 --> 00:25:02,454
This is what he had to say about them:

343
00:25:02,561 --> 00:25:06,436
"These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development

344
00:25:06,513 --> 00:25:08,013
of music in this country.

345
00:25:08,244 --> 00:25:11,100
When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings

346
00:25:11,300 --> 00:25:13,898
you would find young people together singing the songs

347
00:25:13,898 --> 00:25:15,875
of the day or the old songs.

348
00:25:15,875 --> 00:25:20,783
Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day.

349
00:25:21,660 --> 00:25:24,693
We will not have a vocal chord left," Souza said,

350
00:25:24,693 --> 00:25:27,790
"The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution,

351
00:25:27,898 --> 00:25:32,362
as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."

352
00:25:34,716 --> 00:25:36,401
Now this is the picture I want you to focus on.

353
00:25:36,539 --> 00:25:40,008
This picture of "young people together, singing the songs of the day

354
00:25:40,008 --> 00:25:41,231
or the old songs".

355
00:25:41,231 --> 00:25:46,671
This is a picture of culture. We could call it, using modern computer terminology,

356
00:25:46,671 --> 00:25:48,941
a kind of read-write culture.

357
00:25:49,417 --> 00:25:52,780
It's a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation

358
00:25:52,780 --> 00:25:55,107
of their culture: in that sense, it's read-write.

359
00:25:56,061 --> 00:25:59,451
And the opposite of read-write creativity, then, we should call

360
00:25:59,451 --> 00:26:03,933
"read-only" culture. A culture where creativity is consumed

361
00:26:03,933 --> 00:26:09,522
but the consumer is not a creator. A culture, in this sense, that's top-down,

362
00:26:09,691 --> 00:26:12,807
where the vocal cords of the millions of ordinary potential creators

363
00:26:12,930 --> 00:26:16,644
has been lost, and lost, because, as Souza said,

364
00:26:16,736 --> 00:26:22,668
because of these infernal machines: technology, technology like this,

365
00:26:22,791 --> 00:26:25,833
or technology like this, to produce a culture like this,

366
00:26:26,602 --> 00:26:31,210
a culture which enabled efficient consumption, what we call "reading",

367
00:26:32,056 --> 00:26:36,736
but inefficient amateur production, what we should call "writing".

368
00:26:37,321 --> 00:26:41,017
A culture good for listening, but not a culture good for speaking,

369
00:26:41,079 --> 00:26:44,908
a culture good for watching, a culture not good for creating.

370
00:26:46,246 --> 00:26:49,434
Now, the first popular instantiation of the internet,

371
00:26:49,434 --> 00:26:51,446
long after you guys gave us the World Wide Web,

372
00:26:51,446 --> 00:26:54,460
but the first one people really paid attention to,

373
00:26:54,876 --> 00:26:59,841
around 1997 and 1998, was a read-only internet.

374
00:27:00,041 --> 00:27:04,990
So, Napster, which of course, built the largest music archive,

375
00:27:04,990 --> 00:27:09,212
is still a music archive of music created by others

376
00:27:09,212 --> 00:27:13,361
and the legal version, the iTunes Music Store, was an archive of the music

377
00:27:13,361 --> 00:27:16,861
created by others, that you could buy for 99 cents.

378
00:27:17,014 --> 00:27:19,153
These were technologies to enable access,

379
00:27:19,153 --> 00:27:21,380
but access to culture created elsewhere.

380
00:27:22,318 --> 00:27:25,654
But then, shortly in - after the turn of the century, I think,

381
00:27:25,731 --> 00:27:28,082
the internet became fundamentally read-write.

382
00:27:28,698 --> 00:27:31,554
People began taking, and remixing, and sharing

383
00:27:31,554 --> 00:27:36,441
their creativity on the internet, and YouTube was the platform for that.

384
00:27:36,488 --> 00:27:40,650
So, my favorite example, which I first saw on YouTube, is this:

385
00:27:40,712 --> 00:27:46,310
[Read my lips by: Atmo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhlHUTBgAMw]

386
00:27:51,218 --> 00:27:59,498
"Bush: My love, there's only you in my life,

387
00:27:59,852 --> 00:28:03,576
the only thing that's right.

388
00:28:06,668 --> 00:28:14,847
Blair: My first love: you're every breath that I take,

389
00:28:14,970 --> 00:28:19,992
you're every step I make.

390
00:28:21,377 --> 00:28:28,539
Bush: And I, I want to share

391
00:28:28,631 --> 00:28:34,699
Bush and Blair: all my love with you

392
00:28:35,330 --> 00:28:39,429
Bush: No one else will do.

393
00:28:41,922 --> 00:28:44,206
Blair: And your eyes

394
00:28:44,206 --> 00:28:46,199
Bush: Your eyes, your eyes

395
00:28:46,199 --> 00:28:52,820
Bush and Blair: they tell me how much you care for...

396
00:28:52,820 --> 00:28:55,707
announcer: remember to(?) take dictation"

397
00:28:55,707 --> 00:28:59,608
Lessig: OK. And then.more recently, I don't know if (?) many of you

398
00:28:59,608 --> 00:29:01,662
have seen this extraordinary site ThruYou.

399
00:29:01,755 --> 00:29:05,194
This is a site that takes content only from YouTube

400
00:29:05,286 --> 00:29:09,999
and remixes it to produce albums and videos. And this is his latest, you know.

401
00:29:10,091 --> 00:29:12,114
Voice: This is my mother:

402
00:29:12,206 --> 00:29:15,727
Mother: Howdy, howdy. OK.

403
00:29:15,727 --> 00:29:20,232
[plays a continuo on keyboard]

404
00:29:20,401 --> 00:29:22,086
Tenesan1 [see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8sSXO9VWk ]

405
00:29:22,086 --> 00:29:24,878
Tenesan1: The song I'm going to sing, I wrote, is called "Green"

406
00:29:24,924 --> 00:29:28,889
because ... (?)

407
00:29:29,904 --> 00:29:35,706
I'm seing beauty created on the land

408
00:29:37,537 --> 00:29:44,724
On Earth the third day, producing all the plants

409
00:29:45,077 --> 00:29:52,603
Mother Nature created by the most high God

410
00:29:52,819 --> 00:29:58,488
I'm seeing beauty and it's green to me

411
00:29:58,488 --> 00:30:04,198
[other instruments enter]

412
00:30:04,198 --> 00:30:09,163
Spotting tranquillity, peace and restoration

413
00:30:11,116 --> 00:30:19,137
Check all the water travelling from roots

414
00:30:19,275 --> 00:30:26,261
Then you will see roots digging deep, building a strong foundation

415
00:30:26,369 --> 00:30:33,326
Then finally a stem shoots through

416
00:30:33,326 --> 00:30:38,063
I'm seeing beauty, it's green..

417
00:30:38,063 --> 00:30:42,011
Lessig: So this is then what I think of as a platform for read-write creativity.

418
00:30:42,134 --> 00:30:44,544
But then the second stage of this, I think is ultimately

419
00:30:44,544 --> 00:30:46,905
much more interesting. It's the way that this platform

420
00:30:46,905 --> 00:30:49,253
has become a platform for read-write communities,

421
00:30:49,330 --> 00:30:53,930
which means creativity, which then gets remixed by others

422
00:30:54,022 --> 00:30:56,802
in response to the initial read-write creativity.

423
00:30:56,802 --> 00:30:58,364
So here is an example. This video:

424
00:30:58,364 --> 00:31:02,903
[ "Crank That" by Soulja Boy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLGLum5SyKQ + Superman:] You Soulja Boy..

425
00:31:02,995 --> 00:31:07,178
I got a new dance fo you all called the soulja boy

426
00:31:07,178 --> 00:31:10,212
You gotta punch then crank back three times from left to right

427
00:31:10,212 --> 00:31:16,180
Aaah!

428
00:31:16,288 --> 00:31:18,142
Lessig: so that video inspired this video:

429
00:31:18,249 --> 00:31:33,231
[video 2] You Soulja Boy ...

430
00:31:33,277 --> 00:31:35,794
Lessig: which then inspired this video

431
00:31:35,794 --> 00:31:51,964
[Video 3] Soulja Boy ...

432
00:31:51,964 --> 00:31:54,506
Lessig: Well here is another example. I'm sure many of you remember

433
00:31:54,506 --> 00:31:56,390
these extraordinary movies by John Hughes,

434
00:31:56,467 --> 00:31:59,036
what we used to think of as the Brat Pack, until we knew

435
00:31:59,036 --> 00:32:00,828
that there was a Brat Pack before these guys.

436
00:32:00,936 --> 00:32:03,923
So this is the first bit of cultural,

437
00:32:04,046 --> 00:32:05,577
and I think here is the second.

438
00:32:05,607 --> 00:32:10,462
This is a music video by the band Phoenix, with their song Lisztomania:

439
00:32:10,523 --> 00:32:17,071
[Lisztomania: Phoenix' clip]

440
00:32:17,086 --> 00:32:19,253
Lessig (over clip): So classic music video style

441
00:32:19,376 --> 00:32:23,339
[clip continues]

442
00:32:23,339 --> 00:32:25,270
So sentimental

443
00:32:25,270 --> 00:32:28,953
Lessig: Somebody got the idea that they would take John Hughes' content

444
00:32:28,953 --> 00:32:32,713
and remix it with the music by Phoenix. They produced this:

445
00:32:34,005 --> 00:32:50,594
[remix]

446
00:32:50,594 --> 00:32:52,010
So sentimental

447
00:32:53,086 --> 00:32:54,571
not sentimental, no

448
00:32:54,648 --> 00:32:57,244
romantic not disgusting yet

449
00:32:57,337 --> 00:33:02,457
Darling, I'm down and lonely when with the fortunate is only

450
00:33:03,580 --> 00:33:05,034
I've been looking for something else

451
00:33:05,034 --> 00:33:09,254
Do let, do let, do let, jugulate, do let, do let, do

452
00:33:09,331 --> 00:33:11,905
Let's go slowly discouraged

453
00:33:12,043 --> 00:33:19,130
Distant from other interests on your favorite weekend ending...

454
00:33:19,130 --> 00:33:22,721
Lessig: Then somebody had the idea that they would make a local version

455
00:33:22,844 --> 00:33:25,955
of this remix video. So this is the Brooklyn version:

456
00:33:26,109 --> 00:33:57,892
[Brooklyn remix:]

457
00:33:57,984 --> 00:34:01,311
Lessig: And then San Francisco decided they'd like to copy:

458
00:34:01,434 --> 00:34:28,737
[San Francisco remix:]

459
00:34:28,737 --> 00:34:31,528
Lessig: And then Boston University decided they would copy:

460
00:34:31,681 --> 00:34:58,596
[Boston U remix:]

461
00:34:58,596 --> 00:35:01,198
Lessig: There are others, literally scores of these on the internet,

462
00:35:01,198 --> 00:35:02,652
from every place around the world.

463
00:35:02,683 --> 00:35:04,629
(1 sentence ????)

464
00:35:04,629 --> 00:35:09,583
every other place... these people doing the same kind of remix.

465
00:35:09,676 --> 00:35:15,171
The point to recognize is that this is then what Souza was romanticizing

466
00:35:15,263 --> 00:35:18,598
when Souza was talking about the young people getting together

467
00:35:18,598 --> 00:35:20,436
and singing the songs of the day or the old songs.

468
00:35:20,529 --> 00:35:22,967
But they are not singing the songs or the old songs

469
00:35:22,967 --> 00:35:26,513
in their backyard or on the corner, they are now singing them

470
00:35:26,513 --> 00:35:30,173
on this free digital platform that allows people to sing and respond,

471
00:35:30,250 --> 00:35:32,899
and respond again all across the world,

472
00:35:32,976 --> 00:35:37,132
in my view, important and valuable, in understanding

473
00:35:37,132 --> 00:35:39,913
how this kind of culture develops and spreads.

474
00:35:39,913 --> 00:35:41,059
Now, is it legal?

475
00:35:42,798 --> 00:35:46,605
Well, YouTube has just stepped into this battle, of whether it's legal.

476
00:35:46,697 --> 00:35:49,540
They've launched this Copyright School

477
00:35:49,602 --> 00:35:51,713
So I will give you a little bit of their copyright school.

478
00:35:51,744 --> 00:36:11,206
[video from http://www.youtube.com/copyright_school - original subtitled in ca 40 languages]

479
00:36:11,206 --> 00:36:13,773
"Everybody has really been looking forward to the new video

480
00:36:13,773 --> 00:36:15,058
"from Lumpy and the Lumpettes.

481
00:36:16,242 --> 00:36:18,135
"Even Lumpy.

482
00:36:23,173 --> 00:36:28,167
"Russell's a huge fan. He can't wait to tell all his friends about it.

483
00:36:29,382 --> 00:36:33,022
"'Hey, Russell, you didn't create that video!

484
00:36:33,145 --> 00:36:35,525
"'You just copied someone else's content.'"

485
00:36:35,648 --> 00:36:38,646
Lessig: OK, this first part is pretty standard,

486
00:36:38,738 --> 00:36:40,849
talking about copying people's content, uploading it,

487
00:36:41,003 --> 00:36:43,082
and even copying a live performance and uploading it.

488
00:36:43,205 --> 00:36:46,468
And that's fair, that's true, that's accurate in its statement

489
00:36:46,468 --> 00:36:49,524
of what copyright law is, and what I think copyright law should be.

490
00:36:49,524 --> 00:36:51,671
But I want to focus on their talk about remix,

491
00:36:51,747 --> 00:36:54,557
which might be confusing to you, and if you do, you should buy

492
00:36:54,557 --> 00:36:57,370
multiple copies of my book, "Remix" to understand what it's about.

493
00:36:57,478 --> 00:37:00,119
But here's YouTube's version of the story of remix

494
00:37:00,166 --> 00:37:04,554
[YouTube video cont.] 
"'Oh, Russell! Your reuse of the Lumpy's content is clever,

495
00:37:04,554 --> 00:37:06,774
"'but did you get permission for it?

496
00:37:06,774 --> 00:37:09,822
"'Mashups or remixes of content may also require permission

497
00:37:09,822 --> 00:37:12,392
"'from the original copyright owner, depending on whether or not

498
00:37:12,392 --> 00:37:14,369
"'the use is a fair use.

499
00:37:14,462 --> 00:37:34,495
"'In the United States [text shown onscreen is read very fast] ...

500
00:37:34,510 --> 00:37:36,472
"'...you should consult a qualified copyright attorney.'"

501
00:37:37,503 --> 00:37:41,380
Lessig: OK. "Consult a qualified copyright attorney"?

502
00:37:41,472 --> 00:37:46,065
These are 15-year olds. You're trying to teach 15-year olds

503
00:37:46,065 --> 00:37:48,247
how to obey the law, and what you do is you give them

504
00:37:48,247 --> 00:37:50,377
this thing called fair use, and you read it so fast

505
00:37:50,377 --> 00:37:51,862
nobody can understand it.

506
00:37:51,877 --> 00:37:53,900
You believe you've actually explained something sensible?

507
00:37:53,946 --> 00:37:55,139
This is crazy talk.

508
00:37:55,262 --> 00:37:58,698
Of course we train lawyers to understand it, and not think it's crazy talk,

509
00:37:58,805 --> 00:38:01,957
but non lawyers should recognize it's crazy talk.

510
00:38:01,957 --> 00:38:04,185
It's an absurd system here.

511
00:38:04,231 --> 00:38:06,894
And of course, a sensible system would say:

512
00:38:06,971 --> 00:38:12,049
"Then it should be plainly legal for Russell to make a remix,

513
00:38:12,049 --> 00:38:15,435
"a non commercial consumer making a remix of content

514
00:38:15,450 --> 00:38:19,367
"that he sees out there, even if it's not legal for YouTube

515
00:38:19,367 --> 00:38:22,776
"to distribute it without paying some sort of royalty

516
00:38:22,776 --> 00:38:26,338
"to copyright owners whose work has been remixed."

517
00:38:26,338 --> 00:38:29,664
Now the point is, the significance of this kind of culture,

518
00:38:29,664 --> 00:38:31,940
this kind of remix culture, and the opportunity

519
00:38:31,940 --> 00:38:35,391
for this remix culture to flourish is recognized by people on the left,

520
00:38:35,498 --> 00:38:39,233
and the right. Here is my favorite little bit.

521
00:38:39,248 --> 00:38:42,342
It's a little bit bad video, but it's by one of my favorite

522
00:38:42,342 --> 00:38:44,657
libertarians from Cato Institute, which is one of the

523
00:38:44,657 --> 00:38:47,367
most important libertarian think-tanks in the United States,

524
00:38:47,367 --> 00:38:48,598
talking about this:

525
00:38:48,598 --> 00:38:51,733
Libertarian man: Copyright policy isn't just about how to incentivize

526
00:38:51,810 --> 00:38:54,007
the production of a certain kind of artistic commodity.

527
00:38:54,007 --> 00:38:57,191
It's about what level of control we're going to permit to be

528
00:38:57,191 --> 00:39:01,534
exercised over our social realities, social realities that are now

529
00:39:01,580 --> 00:39:04,518
inevitably permeated by pop culture.

530
00:39:04,625 --> 00:39:08,411
I think it's important that we keep these two different kinds

531
00:39:08,411 --> 00:39:12,047
of public uses in mind. If we only focus on how to

532
00:39:12,109 --> 00:39:14,583
maximize the supply of one,

533
00:39:14,706 --> 00:39:18,859
I think we risk suppressing this different and richer

534
00:39:18,859 --> 00:39:21,837
and, in some ways, maybe even more important one.

535
00:39:21,914 --> 00:39:24,604
Lessig: Bingo. That's the point.

536
00:39:24,696 --> 00:39:28,370
There are two kinds of cultures here, two kinds of culture:

537
00:39:28,447 --> 00:39:30,901
the commercial culture and the amateur culture.

538
00:39:30,947 --> 00:39:34,613
And we have to have a system that tries to recognize and encourage both.

539
00:39:34,613 --> 00:39:39,362
And even YouTube, now, the company most responsible

540
00:39:39,362 --> 00:39:41,675
for this revival of this remix culture,

541
00:39:41,675 --> 00:39:45,650
even YouTube, now, is criminalizing the remixer.

542
00:39:45,696 --> 00:39:46,935
OK, now that's the argument.

543
00:39:46,935 --> 00:39:48,235
Here is what I think we need to do here.

544
00:39:48,235 --> 00:39:51,886
In both these contexts, both science and culture,

545
00:39:51,979 --> 00:39:53,463
we need reform.

546
00:39:53,463 --> 00:39:55,909
That's not to say we need the abolition of copyright.

547
00:39:55,986 --> 00:39:59,479
There are copyright abolitionists out there, and I'm not one them.

548
00:39:59,479 --> 00:40:03,167
What we need is reform, both of the law and of us.

549
00:40:03,229 --> 00:40:08,070
So, of the law: I, last year, had the opportunity -

550
00:40:08,070 --> 00:40:10,729
surprising, from the perspective of 10 years ago -

551
00:40:10,729 --> 00:40:13,878
but I was invited by WIPO to talk to WIPO,

552
00:40:13,878 --> 00:40:16,552
and both my presentation and the current Director General

553
00:40:16,629 --> 00:40:20,274
has a conception of what WIPO should do here

554
00:40:20,274 --> 00:40:22,613
and it's very similar. They should launch what we could think of

555
00:40:22,613 --> 00:40:26,146
as a Blue Skies Commission, a commission to think about

556
00:40:26,146 --> 00:40:29,326
what architecture for copyright makes sense in the digital age.

557
00:40:29,388 --> 00:40:32,168
The presumption is, copyright is necessary,

558
00:40:32,168 --> 00:40:35,325
but the presumption is also that the architecture from the 20th century

559
00:40:35,325 --> 00:40:37,786
doesn't make sense in a digital context.

560
00:40:37,879 --> 00:40:41,228
And the elements of, in my view, of this architecture

561
00:40:41,228 --> 00:40:42,805
that would make sense, are 5.

562
00:40:42,820 --> 00:40:46,551
#1 Copyright has got to be simple. If it purports to regulate

563
00:40:46,567 --> 00:40:49,667
15 year olds, 15 year olds must be able to understand it.

564
00:40:49,759 --> 00:40:52,491
They don't understand it now.

565
00:40:52,491 --> 00:40:53,945
No one understands it now.

566
00:40:54,037 --> 00:40:56,255
And we need to remake it, to make it simple,

567
00:40:56,302 --> 00:40:59,800
if it tends to regulate as broadly as it regulates.

568
00:40:59,800 --> 00:41:01,777
#2 It needs to be efficient.

569
00:41:02,239 --> 00:41:05,024
Copyright is a property system. It also happens to be

570
00:41:05,024 --> 00:41:08,168
the most inefficient property system known to man.

571
00:41:09,137 --> 00:41:12,626
We can't know who owns what under this system,

572
00:41:12,733 --> 00:41:15,632
because we have no system for recording ownership

573
00:41:15,663 --> 00:41:18,070
and allowing us to allocate ownership as we want.

574
00:41:18,070 --> 00:41:23,155
And the only remedy to that is to restore a kind of formality,

575
00:41:23,155 --> 00:41:25,952
at least a formality required to maintain a copyright.

576
00:41:26,029 --> 00:41:29,956
And this is a position that's even supported by the RIAA

577
00:41:30,048 --> 00:41:32,079
as one of the essential reforms to copyright.

578
00:41:32,079 --> 00:41:37,102
#3 Copyright has got to be better targeted. It's got to regulate selectively.

579
00:41:37,194 --> 00:41:39,519
So if you think about the distinction between copies and remix,

580
00:41:39,581 --> 00:41:42,607
and the distinction between the professional and the amateur,

581
00:41:42,684 --> 00:41:46,049
of course, we get this matrix - lawyers deal in two dimensions,

582
00:41:46,111 --> 00:41:48,644
you guys in hundred dimensions but here is my two dimensions -

583
00:41:48,690 --> 00:41:51,682
What we have in the current regime of copyright

584
00:41:51,729 --> 00:41:55,006
is presumption of copyright regulates the same

585
00:41:55,006 --> 00:41:57,158
across these four possibilities.

586
00:41:57,219 --> 00:42:00,435
But that's a mistake. Obviously copyright needs to regulate

587
00:42:00,435 --> 00:42:04,028
efficiently here, copies of professional works,

588
00:42:04,044 --> 00:42:08,304
so 10'000 copies of Madonna's latest CD is a problem

589
00:42:08,304 --> 00:42:09,958
that copyright law needs to worry about,

590
00:42:10,035 --> 00:42:13,964
But this area, amateurs remixing culture needs to be free

591
00:42:13,964 --> 00:42:17,211
of the regulation of copyright. Not fair use, but free use.

592
00:42:17,211 --> 00:42:20,011
Not even triggering copyright's concern.

593
00:42:20,057 --> 00:42:22,431
And then these two middle cases are harder.

594
00:42:22,477 --> 00:42:25,208
They need a little more freedom, but they need to assure

595
00:42:25,208 --> 00:42:28,332
some kind of control. So if you share Madonna's latest CD

596
00:42:28,332 --> 00:42:31,255
with your 10'000 best friends, that's a problem.

597
00:42:31,301 --> 00:42:33,432
There needs to be some response to that problem.

598
00:42:33,432 --> 00:42:36,646
And if you take a book and turn it into a movie,

599
00:42:36,738 --> 00:42:39,276
I think it's still appropriate that you get permission for that,

600
00:42:39,276 --> 00:42:40,822
though of course, you need to be able to remix

601
00:42:40,822 --> 00:42:43,619
in the way that we saw Soderberg remixed that video

602
00:42:43,635 --> 00:42:46,709
of Bush and Endless Love.

603
00:42:46,847 --> 00:42:49,324
The point here is that if you think about this, I'm talking about

604
00:42:49,324 --> 00:42:52,315
deregulating a significant space of culture,

605
00:42:52,361 --> 00:42:55,223
and focusing the regulation of copyright work and do some good.

606
00:42:55,223 --> 00:42:58,103
#4 It needs to be effective. And effective means

607
00:42:58,103 --> 00:43:00,972
it must actually work in getting artists paid.

608
00:43:01,033 --> 00:43:04,891
The current system does not work in getting artists paid.

609
00:43:04,891 --> 00:43:06,899
And #5 It needs to be realistic.

610
00:43:06,899 --> 00:43:12,485
Think about the problem of peer-to-peer, quote, "piracy" internationally,

611
00:43:12,978 --> 00:43:16,085
We've, for the last decade, been waging what is referred to

612
00:43:16,085 --> 00:43:19,878
as a war. My friend, the late Jack Valenti, former head of the

613
00:43:19,955 --> 00:43:22,627
Motion Picture Association of America used to refer to it as

614
00:43:22,627 --> 00:43:27,832
his own, quote, "terrorist war", where apparently the terrorists in this war

615
00:43:27,832 --> 00:43:30,288
are our children.

616
00:43:30,335 --> 00:43:33,574
Now this war has been a total failure.

617
00:43:33,574 --> 00:43:38,923
It has not achieved its objective of reducing copyrights sharing

618
00:43:38,923 --> 00:43:40,869
or illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.

619
00:43:40,930 --> 00:43:44,734
And I know the response of some to totally failed wars

620
00:43:44,734 --> 00:43:48,206
is to continue to wage that war forever, and ever more viciously,

621
00:43:48,237 --> 00:43:51,209
but I suggest we adopt the opposite response here.

622
00:43:51,209 --> 00:43:54,663
We sue for peace. We sue for peace in this war,

623
00:43:54,663 --> 00:43:57,477
and consider proposals that would give us the opportunity

624
00:43:57,477 --> 00:44:00,020
to achieve the objectives of copyright,

625
00:44:00,020 --> 00:44:01,336
without waging this war.

626
00:44:01,336 --> 00:44:05,008
So, compulsory licenses, voluntary collective licenses

627
00:44:05,008 --> 00:44:07,675
or the German Greens' suggestion of a cultural flat rate

628
00:44:07,675 --> 00:44:10,369
which would be collected and allocated to artists

629
00:44:10,369 --> 00:44:13,516
on the basis of the harm suffered because of P2P file-sharing,

630
00:44:13,516 --> 00:44:16,060
all of these are alternatives to waging a war

631
00:44:16,060 --> 00:44:20,197
to stop sharing, when sharing is of course at the core

632
00:44:20,197 --> 00:44:21,435
of the architecture of the Net,

633
00:44:21,435 --> 00:44:24,853
and all of them recognize that if we achieve

634
00:44:24,853 --> 00:44:29,852
that alternative, we don't need to block this system of sharing.

635
00:44:29,899 --> 00:44:33,962
Now, the thing to think about is, if we had had one of these alternatives

636
00:44:33,962 --> 00:44:37,797
10 years ago, what would the world look like today,

637
00:44:37,797 --> 00:44:38,835
how would it be different?

638
00:44:38,897 --> 00:44:41,220
Now one difference is, artists would get more money,

639
00:44:41,220 --> 00:44:42,705
they would have gotten more money, because

640
00:44:42,705 --> 00:44:44,829
while we have been waging war against artists [sic: "children", "pirates"?]

641
00:44:44,829 --> 00:44:47,688
artists haven't got anything, only lawyers have.

642
00:44:47,688 --> 00:44:49,435
Businesses would have had more competition,

643
00:44:49,435 --> 00:44:52,352
the rules would have been clear, we would have more companies

644
00:44:52,352 --> 00:44:54,298
than just Apple and Microsoft thinking out

645
00:44:54,298 --> 00:44:56,567
how they could exploit this new digital technologies.

646
00:44:56,628 --> 00:44:59,133
But most important to me, is, we wouldn't have a generation

647
00:44:59,133 --> 00:45:01,733
of criminals who have grown up being called criminals

648
00:45:01,733 --> 00:45:04,145
because they are technically pirates, according to

649
00:45:04,253 --> 00:45:06,230
this outdated copyright law.

650
00:45:06,522 --> 00:45:09,243
So these 5 objectives would go into the conception of what

651
00:45:09,243 --> 00:45:11,317
this Blue Skies commission should think about

652
00:45:11,317 --> 00:45:13,881
and I think it should think of this in a 5 year process

653
00:45:13,881 --> 00:45:17,184
talking about something not to into effect for 10 years.

654
00:45:17,184 --> 00:45:21,655
Think of it as a kind of Map for Berne II, but Bern II being

655
00:45:21,655 --> 00:45:25,354
a system that could work to achieve the objectives of copyright

656
00:45:25,400 --> 00:45:27,547
in a digital age. That's what the law should do.

657
00:45:27,639 --> 00:45:30,492
But most important right now is what we need to do.

658
00:45:30,492 --> 00:45:34,791
We, both in the context of business - so in the context of business,

659
00:45:34,791 --> 00:45:37,956
we need to think about how to better enable legal reuse

660
00:45:37,956 --> 00:45:39,225
of copyrighted material.

661
00:45:39,225 --> 00:45:42,933
And companies like Google and Microsoft's Bing

662
00:45:42,994 --> 00:45:44,356
need to do more here.

663
00:45:44,356 --> 00:45:46,959
We're in the age of remix, where writing is remix,

664
00:45:46,959 --> 00:45:49,942
where teachers tell students to go out to the web

665
00:45:49,942 --> 00:45:51,950
and gather as much content as you can in order to

666
00:45:51,950 --> 00:45:55,289
write a report about whatever it is they are assigning them

667
00:45:55,289 --> 00:45:56,358
to write reports about.

668
00:45:56,358 --> 00:45:59,570
That means Google and Bing need to help our kids

669
00:45:59,570 --> 00:46:02,508
do it legally, which they don't, right now.

670
00:46:02,508 --> 00:46:05,037
So for example, this extraordinary service, which Google

671
00:46:05,037 --> 00:46:07,121
gives you when you want to do an image search:

672
00:46:07,152 --> 00:46:10,124
let's say you search for an image, you do an image search on flowers,

673
00:46:10,124 --> 00:46:13,700
This, over here - I don't know if you play with this -

674
00:46:13,700 --> 00:46:16,158
is really extraordinary: you can then narrow the search

675
00:46:16,158 --> 00:46:17,750
on the basis of many of these categories,

676
00:46:17,750 --> 00:46:19,834
including like the color of the photographs.

677
00:46:19,880 --> 00:46:22,608
So you want pink flowers, there you can see all the pink flowers,

678
00:46:22,608 --> 00:46:23,816
just by clicking on the link.

679
00:46:23,862 --> 00:46:28,378
But why, in this extraction, don't we also have an option

680
00:46:28,378 --> 00:46:30,534
for something like this: show reusable?

681
00:46:30,596 --> 00:46:34,907
Show the content that is explicitly licensed to be reusable,

682
00:46:34,907 --> 00:46:37,439
because Google indexes Creative Commons licenses

683
00:46:37,439 --> 00:46:38,723
associated with these images.

684
00:46:38,723 --> 00:46:42,561
Why not make it on the surface easy to begin to filter out

685
00:46:42,608 --> 00:46:44,900
those that you can use with the permission of the author

686
00:46:44,946 --> 00:46:47,214
from those that presumptively require a lawyer?

687
00:46:47,214 --> 00:46:49,668
Same thing in the context of a site like YouTube.

688
00:46:49,668 --> 00:46:53,479
Why don't we enable more easily the signaling by the creator

689
00:46:53,479 --> 00:46:56,008
that others should be able to download and reuse content,

690
00:46:56,008 --> 00:46:59,786
not so much to redefine what Fair Use is -

691
00:46:59,786 --> 00:47:02,214
I still think there is a fair use claim even if there isn't

692
00:47:02,214 --> 00:47:05,625
permission given to re-use - but at least to encourage people

693
00:47:05,625 --> 00:47:08,105
to begin to signal that their freedom to share

694
00:47:08,151 --> 00:47:10,251
has been authorized by the author.

695
00:47:10,251 --> 00:47:14,749
And then in the academy, which I think we are speaking

696
00:47:14,749 --> 00:47:16,849
about here right now.

697
00:47:16,849 --> 00:47:19,282
We need to recognize in the academy, I think,

698
00:47:19,282 --> 00:47:24,077
an ethical obligation, much stronger than the ones Stallman spoke of

699
00:47:24,077 --> 00:47:26,572
in the context of software. An ethical obligation

700
00:47:26,572 --> 00:47:28,564
which is at the core of our mission.

701
00:47:28,595 --> 00:47:31,196
Our mission is universal access to knowledge.

702
00:47:31,196 --> 00:47:33,507
Universal access to knowledge:

703
00:47:33,538 --> 00:47:36,278
not American University access to knowledge,

704
00:47:36,340 --> 00:47:40,106
but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe.

705
00:47:40,106 --> 00:47:43,106
And that obligation has certain entailments.

706
00:47:43,106 --> 00:47:48,614
Entailment #1 is that we need to keep this work free,

707
00:47:48,614 --> 00:47:50,767
where free means licensed freely.

708
00:47:50,767 --> 00:47:54,838
Now this needs to be part of an ethical point about what we do.

709
00:47:54,838 --> 00:47:58,942
It is resisted by people who say that archiving is enough.

710
00:47:58,973 --> 00:48:02,246
But that is wrong, I think.

711
00:48:02,246 --> 00:48:05,838
Archiving is not enough, because what it does is

712
00:48:05,838 --> 00:48:09,523
leave these rights out-there. And by leaving these rights our-there

713
00:48:09,523 --> 00:48:12,155
it encourages this architecture of closed access.

714
00:48:12,155 --> 00:48:16,175
It encourages models of access that block access

715
00:48:16,175 --> 00:48:17,613
to the non-elite around the world.

716
00:48:17,613 --> 00:48:23,536
And it discourages unplanned, unanticipated and "uncool" innovation.

717
00:48:23,536 --> 00:48:25,860
That's the thing that publishers would have said

718
00:48:25,891 --> 00:48:28,020
of Google Books, when Google Books had the idea

719
00:48:28,020 --> 00:48:30,679
to take all books published and put them on the Web.

720
00:48:30,725 --> 00:48:32,952
Right, publishers thought that was very uncool,

721
00:48:32,952 --> 00:48:35,468
but that's exactly the kind of innovation we need to encourage,

722
00:48:35,514 --> 00:48:37,537
and we know it won't be the publishers

723
00:48:37,537 --> 00:48:39,453
that do that kind of innovation.

724
00:48:39,499 --> 00:48:43,607
We don't need for our work, exclusivity.

725
00:48:43,607 --> 00:48:46,877
And we shouldn't practice, with our work, exclusivity.

726
00:48:46,877 --> 00:48:51,049
And we should name those who do, wrong.

727
00:48:51,049 --> 00:48:56,965
Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work.

728
00:48:56,965 --> 00:49:00,342
Now how do we do that? I think we do that by exercising leadership,

729
00:49:00,403 --> 00:49:04,679
leadership by those who can afford to take the lead,

730
00:49:04,679 --> 00:49:08,727
the senior academics, those with tenure, those who can say,

731
00:49:08,742 --> 00:49:11,819
on committees granting tenure, that it doesn't matter

732
00:49:11,819 --> 00:49:14,458
that you didn't publish in the most prestigious journal

733
00:49:14,458 --> 00:49:17,970
if that journal is not Open Access.

734
00:49:17,970 --> 00:49:21,716
People who can begin to help redefine what access to knowledge is,

735
00:49:21,716 --> 00:49:24,752
by supporting Open Access and respecting Open Access

736
00:49:24,752 --> 00:49:27,760
and encouraging Open Access.

737
00:49:27,760 --> 00:49:30,222
Now, I'm really honored and happy to be able to talk about this

738
00:49:30,222 --> 00:49:34,426
here, where you of course gave us the Web,

739
00:49:34,426 --> 00:49:38,686
and CERN has taken the lead in supporting Open Access

740
00:49:38,686 --> 00:49:41,621
in a crucial space of physics.

741
00:49:41,621 --> 00:49:45,822
And the work that you are doing right now will have a dramatic effect

742
00:49:45,822 --> 00:49:49,662
on changing the debate on science across the globe.

743
00:49:49,662 --> 00:49:51,788
But what we need to do is to think about

744
00:49:51,788 --> 00:49:55,935
how to leverage this leadership into leadership for the globe,

745
00:49:55,935 --> 00:50:02,442
to benefit this area of the globe as much as this area of the globe.

746
00:50:02,442 --> 00:50:04,219
Thank you very much.

747
00:50:04,219 --> 00:50:06,664
(applause)

748
00:50:06,664 --> 00:50:08,241
[credits for Flickr photos]

749
00:50:08,241 --> 00:50:15,403
[This work licensed: CC-BY]

750
00:50:15,464 --> 00:50:19,000
Subtitles: universalsubtitles.org/videos/jD5TB2eebD5d/